GoldmanSachs666 Message Board

According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain
*As defined in Wikipedia

Friday, April 16, 2010

SEC charges Goldman Sachs with fraud

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Anonymous said...

Just read this entire article and I fail to see what Goldman did wrong.

If they had done something to insure the Abacus fund would fail, that would be another story. It failed because of the housing crash. Goldman didn't know for sure housing would crash, as proven by the fact that they were more long than short in mortgage bonds, a fact that most ignore. If they knew housing would crash they would have been fully short. Ill-informed people need a scapegoat, and Goldman, with its high salaries is an easy one.

The technical issue of whether Paulson was an "outside advisor" is what this case is about, if you read the article carefully. Funny reading all the crazed responses that don't even focus on what this article says...lets just get out the burning torches.

Post a Comment